Another survey offers food for thought

USA Today had an article about a survey of young adults produced for a conservative Christian organization. Some interesting statistics:

Even among those in the survey who “believe they will go to heaven because they have accepted Jesus Christ as savior”:

•68% did not mention faith, religion or spirituality when asked what was “really important in life.”

•50% do not attend church at least weekly.

•36% rarely or never read the Bible.

The headline is 72% of Millenials (i.e. 18-29 year olds) more ‘spiritual than religious’

Of course, for such a survey to be of real use, it should compare results across age cohorts, to see if these numbers have fallen over the decades. Other surveys have done so, and have detected a trend away from traditional religion and institutional Christianity.

Church growth gurus often recommend trying to get more relevant with worship or constructing a product that will sell in this market. But I think that may be misguided. Doing that may only change brand loyalty as it were; it won’t bring people into the store (church). I’ve noticed something interesting at Grace. When we open our doors to the public on Saturdays or during the week, all kinds of people come in. The curious, the tourists, et al. But often people come in, sit down, and stay a few minutes or longer, to pray, meditate, or simply enjoy the space. Who knows whether they will ever come back or what might have been on their minds, but for a few moments, we were there for them.

Thinking about History

I’ve been thinking about the uses of history. Perhaps, there’s something remaining from the post in which I talked about the burden of tradition that I sense troubles the Archbishop of Canterbury. Then I came across this essay by Diana Butler Bass, excerpted from her book A People’s History of Christianity.

I will grant that most contemporary Christians know little about the history of Christianity. My experience teaching college students was that for Evangelicals, the two thousand years that separated themselves from the world of the New Testament didn’t exist. Trying to get them to understand the very different historical context of the first century was inordinately difficult and getting them to take interest in the lives of Christians in the intervening centuries was almost impossible. With the demise of denominationalism, few of them were even curious about the historical origins of different understandings of the sacraments and other practices.

Bass seems to link the waning interest in history to the Enlightenment and modernity and sees mainline denominations as especially tempted to do away with it altogether. Certainly the Enlightenment bears some responsibility as seventeenth and eighteenth century thinkers tried to break away from the burdens of the past.

I wonder whether the problem isn’t so much ignoring the past as it is constructing a useful past. History is very much contested. In recent months we’ve had controversies over the changing Texas schoolbook standards with their purging of progressive voices and even those aspects of the past that don’t fit in with a conservative Christian reading of American history (like Thomas Jefferson). We’ve had Southern governors honor Confederate History Month with nary a mention of slavery. For many churches, for many Christians, the past isn’t useful because it drags up too much baggage. That’s true for progressive Christians, Evangelicals, and Roman Catholics.

Tradition can be a burden. The stories we tell help to define us individually and as communities, but it is our responsibility to those communities, today and in the past, to tell those stories honestly. I wonder if that’s not part of what burdens the Archbishop of Canterbury.